The Shotgun Blog

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Wikipedia Editors threatened over Muhammad article

A friend of mine recently pointed me to the Talk Page for the Wikipedia article on the Prophet Muhammad. It's an interesting read. Particularly the contrast between the highly balanced and fair Wikipedia editors who are standing up for their principles of non-censorship on Wikipedia and the other side.

I was particularly stunned by this comment:

"You have only heard of 2 Muslims right now who have only but kindly asked to remove the pictures. The Muslim Ummah does not care whether wikipedia is censored or not. The Dutch printed a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad, that was within itself controversial because of content. but regardless we not only got the company to apologize but also the government. The Pope said derogatory comments and we made him apologize. If this leaks out to the known public, we muslims don't give a rats ass whether your laws permit you to put up these pictures. Eventually we will get them reversed through peaceful or forceful means."

This really bothers me because I fear that threats of violence may ultimately succeed in casting a chill over forums like Wikipedia,
which have become bastions for free speech and intellectual honesty.

Sadly, we cannot count on our government to uphold our rights anymore.
In fact, it's become more and more likely that our government's will agree with them via human rights tribunals and over-reaching
anti-discrimination laws whose contemporary purpose is to placate extremists, not protect society from them.

Comments

This is part of the Islamist agenda of the gradual implementation of Sharia throughout the West in order to ensure the supremacy of Islam. The more people cave in to this demands, be it due to political correctness or fear, the more they aid and abet the Islamisation of the West.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-01-10 6:15:37 PM

Muslims have picked the right targets - Western 'journalists' and writers are for the most part cowardly whiners, they're too cowardly to even consider upsetting each other, never mind fanatical killers. Poodles.

Posted by: Philanthropist | 2009-01-10 7:02:41 PM

They're not half as cowardly as the judges and politicians and HRC tribunals that think we all have something to apologize about for having a Judeo-Christian cultural heritage, Philanthropist.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-10 7:16:37 PM

While there are many excellent books on the situation, I do recommend "They Must Be Stopped" by Brigitte Gabriel, an Arab Christian born and raised in Lebanon and now living in the United States. She also has established a grassroots organisation with its own website at www.actforamerica.org. As she says citizens of western countries must organise at the grassroots level, since we cannot depend on our government to protect us and our way of life. She is not advocating arms, violence or illegal means, but it is nevertheless effective. The United States and Australia are far ahead of us in this regard but better late than never.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-01-10 7:33:13 PM

Regardless of one's position on Muslim issues raised in this post, please... PLEASE do not believe that "Wikipedia [has become a bastion] for free speech and intellectual honesty". That, it is not.

Spend a few days reading about "criticism of Wikipedia" in places OTHER THAN Wikipedia. You'll see.

If you see an image of Mohamad, maybe you should throw your shoes at it. His image causes a lot of problems, so it deserves to have shoes thrown at it. That is a way of showing disrespect - as we have recently been taught by our muslim fellows

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2009-01-10 11:36:43 PM

Is s/he talking on behalf of all muslims or a mere 1%? I am amazed by the uninformed comments by some here.

Posted by: Dan | 2009-01-11 4:45:10 AM

Free speech too often is a right mainly for the bad guys, crooks, not the decent folks

So instead of shellacking us for our perceived ignorance, Dan--the favourite tactic of the wide-ranging but shallow-plumbing armchair expert--why don't you enlighten us? Anyone can say a "magic word" like "ignorance" and "racism." It doesn't make you more enlightened or morally superior.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-11 12:38:20 PM

P.S. Even if this person is not talking on behalf of most Muslims--which is almost certainly the case--it's irrelevant. Because that one percent of militant Muslims remains our avowed enemy. And peace-loving Muslims, by association, will become our enemies also, unless they start to stand up and say, "Speak for yourself, and not for us" and do it publicly.

Most Germans weren't Nazis, either.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-01-11 12:40:48 PM

It's like this. 'A' can do whatever it wants to 'B'. But 'B' may do only what 'A' allows. In a similar vein, HAMAS can attack ISRAEL however it wants; but ISRAEL may do only what is allowed by HAMAS. [P.S. No one really wants to throw shoes at a cultural image ....]